What are the problems in China's policy implementation evaluation mechanism?

First, the main defects of China's policy implementation evaluation mechanism (I) Fuzzy evaluation criteria Policy implementation evaluation must first have specific and clear evaluation criteria. From the perspective of foreign evaluation standard theory, behaviorism period attaches importance to the evaluation of policy implementation from the technical and factual levels, and advocates the use of empirical technology to examine the corresponding relationship between the operational objectives and behavioral results of public policies, and pays attention to efficiency, effectiveness and benefit. In the post-behaviorism period, the implementation of public policies, as an important way to allocate social resources authoritatively, has become more important in its legitimacy, fairness and sociality than simple technical standards. Judging from the evaluation criteria of China's policy implementation, the main problem is that the evaluation criteria are too vague. First of all, because qualitative standards are easy to determine, quantitative standards are difficult to determine. Public managers often pay too much attention to qualitative standards and ignore quantitative standards, which leads to fuzzy evaluation standards. Secondly, in order to ensure more "freedom of activity" and "space for action" in the process of policy evaluation, some policy evaluators are unwilling to make the evaluation criteria too quantitative. Thirdly, because the effects and benefits of some policies are difficult to be measured and expressed by quantitative relations, or although they can be quantified, they are difficult and costly, so the evaluation criteria for policy implementation have to be blurred. Although the evaluation of policy implementation effect essentially needs the method of economic consideration, and reflects the input and output of policy behavior in monetary form, in fact, the complexity of public policy not only makes it impossible to accurately calculate the cost of input, but also makes it more difficult to measure the income of output simply in monetary form. For example, does the social relief policy improve the lives of the poor or change the fairness of the whole society? Does the poverty alleviation plan increase the employment opportunities of the poor, or change their employment attitude? Does the social welfare policy increase the income of social beneficiaries or reduce their enthusiasm for employment? The fact that the quantitative requirements and policy effects of policy implementation evaluation are often impossible to quantify also makes the evaluation process produce a large number of fuzzy standards that are difficult to really grasp. (2) The effect of implementing the policy of evaluating standard deviation is produced in the process of implementation. If the expected effect is not achieved, it may be that the implementer did not strictly follow the policy plan, or there is something wrong with the policy implementation process itself. The evaluation of the implementation process is helpful to analyze the real cause of the problem. Here, the key to the evaluation is to determine whether the public policy has been implemented in a legal and appropriate way according to the provisions of the policy plan. The difficulty is, in the face of the vivid and changeable realistic environment, should the policy executors strictly adhere to the policy plan or should they have the power to deal with the situation? The policy implementer knows that the implementation of the plan will lead to adverse consequences, but refuses to take responsibility; Or if the person subjected to execution's camera strain leads to unexpected adverse consequences, who should bear the responsibility? For the executed person, restraint and contingency may be rational choices, but the results of the two rational choices are different, and it is difficult to unify the evaluation of this result, which leads to the deviation of evaluation standards. The standard deviation of policy implementation evaluation in China is mainly manifested in responsibility deviation and performance deviation. The deviation of responsibility is mainly manifested in the following aspects: first, it overemphasizes the responsibility to the superior organization, superior leader or bidding unit, and even to one or several people with policy power, while ignoring the performance of policy implementation, leading to bad behaviors such as speculation; Second, the responsibility for the principles, policies and legal system of the state and public organizations is overemphasized, and the performance of policy implementation is neglected, which leads to the failure to seriously analyze the specific environment and changed objective conditions of policy implementation, mechanical implementation, and even barbaric implementation. The performance deviation is mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, it overemphasizes the work quantity, the speed of implementing targets and the completion of tasks of policy enforcement agencies and personnel, and ignores their work efficiency, quality, effectiveness and the utilization rate of various resources, which leads to unnecessary waste of public management resources, and also gives some enforcement agencies and personnel opportunities to be opportunistic, engage in malpractices for selfish ends and occupy public management resources; Second, the evaluation overemphasizes static written materials, such as work summary, work report, various statements, account books, statistical data, etc. , while ignoring the dynamic implementation process and implementation effect, leading some executives to play digital games and word games, bullying the upper and deceiving the lower. (III) Single subject of implementation evaluation Diversification of evaluation subjects is the basis and premise of policy implementation evaluation. This is because only diversified evaluation subjects can comprehensively evaluate all aspects and links of policy implementation, so as to prevent points from replacing areas, achievements from being embellished and achievements from being covered up, and overcome the halo effect in evaluation; Only diversified evaluation subjects can evaluate the policy implementation activities from different angles, and through comprehensive induction and mutual supplement, the objectivity of evaluation can be guaranteed, and the subjective tendency and even personal will of a few people can be prevented from affecting the evaluation results. The subject of policy implementation evaluation in China is single: individual leaders monopolize the evaluation power, and personal opinions and personal will affect the evaluation process and results; The superior organization controls the evaluation power, and other organizations and personnel have no right to participate in the evaluation; Evaluation institutions operate behind closed doors, and members of society rarely have the opportunity to participate in evaluation; The evaluation of public opinion is a mere formality and cannot play its due supervisory role. In addition, there are two particularly important factors that will affect the appraisal conclusion of the appraisal object. First, the quality defects of policy implementers will lead to subjective deviation of evaluation conclusions; Second, the formulation of policies and the intervention of executors on the appraisers may lead the appraisers to draw distorted conclusions against their free will. These phenomena exist in the practice of policy implementation evaluation in China. The relationship between the evaluator and the evaluated is very subtle. The former is the examiner and the latter is the auditee, but the particularity of policy implementation evaluation is that the auditee is often a relatively strong government department. The government certainly hopes that the conclusion of the evaluation will increase the public's trust in the government's ability, enhance the government's prestige, and win the goodwill support of universality or particularity; Once the government is worried that the evaluation conclusion is contrary to this, it will infiltrate its emotions and motives by using influence and changing resource allocation to reach its expected evaluation conclusion. In this sense, the evaluated executives sometimes become obstacles to evaluation [1]. (4) The evaluation of the ineffectiveness of the implementation evaluation conclusion belongs to the category of public management dynamic mechanism. Any management is inseparable from reinforcement, including positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. The former plays a positive role, while the latter plays a negative role. What is the basis of rewards and punishments? It is the quantity and quality of the work, and it is the situation of undertaking and implementing the work objectives, and it is necessary to draw conclusions through evaluation. Policy implementation evaluation draws conclusions on the work quality of policy implementation agencies and their personnel, so as to encourage the advanced, spur the backward and mobilize their enthusiasm for implementation. As policy implementers, because of the implementation evaluation, they can be forced to further enhance their sense of responsibility and credibility and continuously improve the quality of implementation. Moreover, the evaluation results of policy implementation can provide a basis for the adjustment of policy implementation agencies and personnel, including the internal power and responsibility relationship and personnel adjustment of policy implementation agencies, as well as the re-selection of policy implementation agencies and personnel. In addition, through the evaluation of the policy implementation effect, it can provide a basis for a new round of policy adjustment, guide the formation of new policies, and promote public policies to be more scientific and reasonable. There are two kinds of invalid conclusions in China's policy implementation evaluation: one is completely invalid; Second, it is partially invalid. Completely invalid means that the evaluation result is a mere formality, which has not played any role, and the rewards and punishments have not been cashed or have been cashed, but it has nothing to do with the evaluation result. For example, in the case that the evaluation results are not made public, individual leaders subjectively decide the reward and punishment measures; Or although the evaluation results are public, rewards and punishments are not implemented according to the evaluation results. In practice, it is often manifested that the policy implementers who are at fault do not bear the corresponding legal, political or work responsibilities. Partial ineffectiveness means that the evaluation results are partially effective. Although the evaluation results are taken into account when rewards and punishments are implemented, rewards and punishments are not entirely based on the evaluation results. In practice, it is often shown that when rewards are needed, leaders often get the most benefits by greed, but the direct executors are not fully rewarded; When the responsibility should be investigated, leaders often dilute the responsibility, roll with the punches, and the direct supervisor bears the adverse consequences. The invalid evaluation results make the policy implementation activities lose the extremely important constraint and dynamic mechanism, which seriously affects the work enthusiasm and subjective initiative of the policy implementation agencies and personnel. Invalid evaluation results not only waste evaluation resources, but also may directly lead to the failure of policy implementation. Second, the improvement of China's policy implementation evaluation mechanism (I) Improving the understanding of evaluation Compared with other links in the policy process, the implementation evaluation is undoubtedly the least noticeable and the weakest link. A common phenomenon in today's world is that the government spends a lot of manpower, material resources and financial resources on policy formulation and implementation every year. However, few governments or organizations attach importance to the implementation of evaluation, and accordingly, the investment in the implementation of evaluation is pitiful, and our government is no exception. The main reason is that people lack due attention to the implementation evaluation. Therefore, it is imperative to change people's ideas. First of all, governments and policy departments at all levels should make use of various media, including newspapers, magazines, television, internet and other channels, to increase the publicity of policy implementation evaluation, so that people can fundamentally change old ideas and re-recognize the role and significance of implementation evaluation, especially governments at all levels and corresponding policy departments, should fully realize the positive role of evaluation in policy formulation and implementation. Secondly, we should correct the guiding ideology of implementing evaluation. The fundamental purpose of administrative evaluation is to promote scientific and democratic decision-making and optimize the effect of policy implementation. Therefore, the implementation evaluation should be carried out realistically. In addition to summing up experience and affirming achievements, we should also find problems, find out deficiencies and explore reasons, and give full play to its diagnostic and critical functions, instead of becoming a means for decision makers and executors to pursue fame and fortune. (2) Increasing investment in evaluation Any work cannot be separated from the necessary support of human, material and financial resources, and the implementation of evaluation is no exception. But in fact, governments at all levels in China have very limited investment in policy implementation evaluation. It can be said that insufficient investment is a major obstacle to the smooth implementation of policy evaluation. Therefore, governments at all levels should not only attach importance to the evaluation of policy implementation ideologically and conceptually, but also increase their investment in the evaluation of policy implementation in practical work to ensure the smooth progress of the evaluation. Specifically, in talent evaluation, governments at all levels should be equipped with evaluators who master evaluation methods and skills, which is the premise to ensure the smooth progress of evaluation and the objective and fair evaluation conclusions. In terms of evaluation institutions, it is necessary to establish corresponding evaluation institutions. Without it, it is difficult to carry out policy implementation evaluation. In terms of funds, it is necessary to invest the necessary funds, and the adequacy of funds determines whether the evaluation work can be carried out smoothly to a certain extent. (3) Improve the evaluation standard system. First of all, there must be performance standards. Performance standards mainly include effect standards, efficiency standards and effect standards. Effect standard refers to the result and influence of policy implementation. Efficiency standard refers to the proportion standard between the amount of resources invested and the effect obtained in policy implementation, and usually takes the maximum effect achieved by unit cost or the lowest cost required by unit effect as the evaluation form. The effect standard refers to the influence of policy implementation on social development and social justice, as well as the social response and reaction intensity as an evaluation standard. Secondly, there must be standardized standards. Normative standards are the process standards of policy implementation, which are used to evaluate the process of policy implementation, mainly including legal standards, policy standards, implementation standards and organizational standards. Third, there must be non-normative standards. Non-normative standards are the evaluation standards of policy implementation methods, which are used to evaluate the effectiveness of policy implementation methods, mainly including means standards, democratic participation standards, rights realization standards and responsibility performance standards. At present, in the case of poor policy implementation in China, the evaluation of policy implementation should especially highlight performance, with performance standards as the core and focus. (D) Broadening the information channels of evaluation is the premise and basis of decision-making, and also the basis of evaluation. Without real and detailed information, the objectivity and scientificity of policy implementation evaluation cannot be discussed. Our government should broaden the information channels for policy implementation evaluation, establish an information network system covering the whole society, maximize the effective communication between decision-making centers, evaluation institutions and the public, and minimize the interception and distortion of information to ensure that policy evaluation institutions can obtain true and detailed information. Therefore, in addition to the information that should be kept confidential by law, governments and decision-making bodies at all levels in China should disseminate all other information such as the background of policy formulation, implementation status and evaluation conclusions to the society in time through announcements, networks and other forms, so as to enhance the transparency of the policy process and put an end to "black box" operations. This is also conducive to the policy evaluation institutions to obtain as much information as possible, reduce the evaluation cost, and at the same time, it is also conducive to the dissemination of evaluation conclusions, so as to facilitate timely understanding of the feedback effect of policy implementation. For the public, they can also express their opinions and suggestions on the implementation of relevant policies through information channels, thus promoting the democratization of decision-making and implementation. (5) Select appropriate evaluation methods and techniques to improve the credibility of evaluation conclusions. Implementing evaluation requires appraisers to be proficient in various evaluation methods and technologies. Common evaluation methods include before-and-after comparison, physical evaluation, expert judgment and self-evaluation. Evaluation technology mainly includes planning evaluation technology, important path method, cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit analysis and so on. It should be said that each method and technology has its advantages and disadvantages and scope of application. Therefore, appraisers should be able to choose and use flexibly according to the specific conditions of each place, and when necessary, they can comprehensively use various methods and technologies to improve the credibility of appraisal conclusions. At present, we should also pay attention to the development of grey evaluation technology. Grey prediction has become a special science, and grey evaluation can not be ignored. The grey effect of policy refers to the policy influence that is hard to see but does exist in a period of time. Policy implementation will inevitably bring some unexpected effects or additional effects, but with the passage of time, these effects will gradually emerge. It is sometimes very important to evaluate the additional effects of these policies. For example, the unplanned population policy implemented in the early days of the founding of New China only saw "one more person with two hands", but did not see "one more person with one more mouth". The role of two hands may not give full play to this reality. As a result, China has an overpopulation and has to carry out family planning. In addition, there are some reasons for the grey evaluation of policy implementation: the implementation purpose of the policy itself is sometimes unclear; The knowledge level of appraisers is limited; Sudden large-scale events (such as natural disasters, world wars, etc.) ) has happened; The intangible effect of the policy cannot be accurately evaluated. (six) determine the policy objectives and select the evaluation object. Before evaluating the success or failure of a policy, the policy analyst must first diagnose the existence of relevant social problems and reasonably define the objectives so as to point out what actions to take to improve the situation. Before evaluating the implementation of the policy, the evaluator must know what the original intention of the policy is to solve and what its expected goal is, otherwise the policy evaluation will lose its reference, the evaluator will be at a loss and the evaluation conclusion will not be credible. Therefore, any policy should be as clear as possible. In addition, the evaluation objects should be carefully selected. Any policy should be evaluated in theory, but not every policy can be evaluated or suitable because of the limitations of manpower, material resources and financial resources in reality and the factors of the policy itself. Therefore, the appraisers must carefully select the appraisal objects to ensure that China's limited appraisal resources are fully and efficiently utilized. (VII) Putting the policy implementation evaluation into the institutionalized track To effectively carry out the policy implementation evaluation, it is necessary to improve the evaluation system. First of all, it is necessary to realize the procedural policy evaluation. Through this system, in addition to symbolic or symbolic public policies, the implementation of various policies should be evaluated to varying degrees if possible. Appraisers should strive for a systematic, comprehensive and fair evaluation in the spirit of seeking truth from facts. After the evaluation, the evaluation report should be written in time and the evaluation conclusion should be made public. Secondly, it is necessary to establish an evaluation fund. Policy evaluation is a huge and complex system engineering, which requires a lot of manpower to practice and collect all kinds of information for a long time and consumes huge funds. The establishment of policy evaluation fund can materially ensure that policy evaluation does not become a mere formality. Thirdly, attach importance to the evaluation conclusion and digest and absorb the evaluation results. Any public policy must involve the allocation of social resources. In order to prevent the decision-makers from making arbitrary decisions and the executors from abusing their power, it is necessary to directly link the evaluation conclusion with the rewards and punishments of relevant personnel through the system, truly realize the unity of responsibility, power and benefit in the policy process, and make the policy evaluation play its due incentive and supervision role in China's policy implementation.